Ars responds to Big Cable: TV networks nothing like an iPod

The point was brought up that Apple required new iPods because of the new DRM to play movie rentals.

There was absolutely no technical reason that both revisions of the 5th generation iPods could not have had a firmware update to play movie rentals. The lack of 5G iPod support was purely a choice made by Apple to force consumers to buy new equipment.

Much the same way Apple started requiring an authentication/lock-out chip in the 2007 model iPods for video accessories. This was not at all about DRM required, but about forcing people to buy newer and more expensive equipment.

Again, theres no technical reason my 80GB 5.5G iPod that cost me $360 after taxes just 6 months before the 2007 refresh can't play movie rentals from iTunes with any run of the mill video accessory. It only can't because Apple wants me to buy a NEW iPod with an Apple branded video accessory that costs $50.

This makes the whole point of iPods in the original pro-SOC argument completely moot. New iPods were not required for DRM, because Apple could have very easily released a firmware update for the old iPods. Apple did it simply to force upgrades.

This is not about pirating. As sources for the pirates are not the ones mentioned here. What it is about is giving more control to the media companies and moving more and more to pay per view for everything. This will force the people who are too lazy to pirate to pay and it will work until large enough group of people gets pissed off enough that politicians start caring more about the peoples opinion than the money from the media industry.

The way things are going that day might not be too far away. Media industry has been exceptionally greedy and pushy towards laws that any sane human being can see lead to police state and totally one sided copyright laws.

Revolution will be interesting to watch. Media is strong but not as strong as pissed of population.

Originally posted by Hagen:Now I'm all for less restrictions on my content and all, but would this be a big deal at all if whatever eventual bill this became were to specify that only premium content could be restricted in this manner? Before I had a cable box that allowed me to easily pay $4 for a movie, I had to go to Blockbuster. Now they're wanting to make it so you have to have a certain level of tech to be able to stream the movies. *shrug* I don't see much of a difference there.

Actually. You could pay $4 for a pay per view movie BEFORE the technology was in place to allow Blockbuster to even exist. But not let the actual facts get in the way of anything.

It seems to me the reason SOC was banned in the first place was the govt didn't want a two-tiered public network. This carrot-on-a-stick approach doesn't fool me.

The M.O. of these kindly douchebags is to make the public -pay again- for their television entertainment. Some of us pay for cable TV access, so we can watch television shows. We wanted to skip commercials, the execs balked and called us 'thieves': "You want to watch our TV shows? you'll do as you're told and watch the commercials!". If we want to watch the shows without commercials we'll have to buy them on DVD.. we'll have to -pay again-.

We wanted to time-shift TV shows, the execs balked and called us thieves: "You want to watch our shows? You'll do as you're told and watch them when WE say you can!" If we want to watch TV when it's convenient for us we would have to wait to buy the shows on DVD.. and pay again. And somehow after all of this we do not regard these good-hearted people as anything other than scum.. after all they've done for us. The audacity...

They claim they will make our lives better with SOC implementation, with their shiny carrot on their stick, by offering "premium content". But who decides how premium that content is? They could re-define "premium content" to whatever they chose.. i.e. whatever we'd be willing to PAY AGAIN for. You want to watch the very last episode of LOST? You'd better be willing to pay handsomely for the privilege.. never you mind that you've already paid for cable TV service, pay again to watch that show. You want to watch the news? Hey all that news-gathering costs a lot of money.. these people are having a tough economic time.. pay again for the privilege of the wonderful shimmering fresh news. (I now realize this point was made in the original article and I'm really not adding much new with this).

Thanks for putting a great argument into just a few easy to understand words. My biggest fear is that giving the MPAA one foot in the door will open that door wide open to every television network, movie studio and sporting league. This has to be stopped immediately.

Originally posted by JEDIDIAH:Actually. You could pay $4 for a pay per view movie BEFORE the technology was in place to allow Blockbuster to even exist. But not let the actual facts get in the way of anything.

Bidirectional cable TV tech & PPV are probably older than you are.

I'm 33 actually and I didn't have a cable box that allowed that kind of thing until 2004. PPV yes is far older, but it was largely for major events and was a lot more than $4. I remember wanting to try and get one of the Wrestlemania's when I was a kid and my dad had me call and we were going to have to get some special converter just for the event and then return it. My dad decided he didn't want to fuss with it.

PPV has been around for ages, but the ease of use we currently experience with it is certainly a more recent development

Originally posted by Maury Markowitz:> Do not offer these new movies for streaming on the old cable box.

Uhhh, that's basically what they're doing.Have new box with SOC: get first run moviesHave old box without SOC: don't get first run movies

I agree with you on this, however, I think that the protection of first-run movies gets to much attention in this issue. The thing I'm afraid would happen if SOC is accepted is that it becomes the standard for all programming "... Hey! We need to protect our content, not just the new high-value content but also the old classic content ...". What is left then to watch for those without SOC compliant HW, broadcasts from the White House, Emergency broadcasts in case of war ? I'm not affected by the decision since I'm not in the USA but if it is accepted there, the next point on the agenda will be to export it to the EU.

A surprising number of antennas are appearing on Toronto rooftops again. Maybe 1 in 25 houses, but that's pretty significant considering it was something like 1 in 1000 two years ago.

Let's see: about 8 channels of free content, better signal and image quality than cable, and no boxes that look like they came from the 1980s. And my antenna consists of a 6 inch piece of 14 gauge copper house wire glued to the end of a coax (I'm serious).

I do miss the Comedy Channel though, Stewy was on at 11 instead of 12.

> I agree with you on this, however, I think that the protection> of first-run movies gets to much attention in this issue.

Maybe, but by that token I think first-run movies get too much attention.

Who goes to see first-run movies? Teenagers. They don't go to see the movies, they go to be part of the crowd of other teenagers.

Movies-at-home appeal to a different demographic. A demographic that doesn't care about first-run. I would argue that there is very little market for first-run movies on TV. I think SOC is DOA, and it isn't even A yet.

The answer is very very simple. It glares at everyone and they fail to see it;

If the content providers want a device that the consumer has no control over the output, then let them create it and try to sell it to the consumer.

Simple capitalist Supply and Demand. The problem here is that they KNOW that no one will want it or pay for it. The only way to make it work is to take away the existing product from everyone first. That's why they want to legislate it. There should be NO legislation on this at all. If they have a better product, then sell it as that. If its not really better, then it will not be purchased and will fail. That is how services and goods are brought to the market in every other case. There should be no exception here.

In the Pro article comments on page 3 Nagumo nailed it: "Content is no longer controlled by distribution. Get over it."

Someone else mentioned it in the comments here as well. What the content owners would like is to charge you as many times as they can, for the exact same content. That's it. That is the sole purpose of all DRM.

What do most consumers want? To have the freedom to choose when and how they consume their media. The easiest way to accomplish that is to distribute media DRM-free, in standard formats. You can innovate that distribution model and provide tiered pricing based on availability/demand/etc. to almost no end.

In a truly free market, DRM would fail spectacularly and there would at least be some sort of price variability for media. Unfortunately, what we have are oligopolies engaged in collusion as evidenced by price-fixing. And what's worse, these corporations exert enormous influence over our own government.

Piracy will continue unabated and will do so FOREVER, so quite frankly the argument that SOC will help protect content has absolutely no merit. Some people will just never pay for things if there is a way to not pay for them. However, I believe the vast majority of people will pay if you charge a fair price and make it convenient for them.

I don't honestly know what is more profitable for corporations: to encumber content with DRM, price-fix and gouge a select few customers to the maximum extent possible, or to innovate and let consumer demand take over.

Given the gradual removal of DRM from music on iTunes and elsewhere, I suspect the latter. Clearly the moral choice is the latter, but corporations have proven time and time again that morality plays little to no role in their decisions.

Then, to me, this is largely a litmus test to see whose interests our government is protecting: Corporations, or The People. I'm fairly sure I read a document which seemed to indicate government should be For The People, but our government's decisions over the last twenty years have made me question my memory.

They can keep their SOC. I agree with all who state this is just the foot in the door and sooner or later some other thing will be deemed appropriate to use it with, and so on.If I want to watch a first run I go to the theater, if I can wait I stop by my local Red Box and spent a buck. When they control the access they can charge what they want or think they can get away with... GTFO of my life, please.

All of this appears to be much ado about nothing. I can get all of this from iTunes already. If anything thinks that seeing the movie in question 1 week earlier is SO FRIGGING IMPORTANT that they would actually pay extra for it, then they're willing to get the new box anyway.

Really, this argument is completely bogus.

Maury

RTFA. We're not talking about movies, we're talking about other content that suddenly becomes a candidate for SOC: news items, or content that might never see light of day without SOC.

Originally posted by Blitzenn:Simple capitalist Supply and Demand. The problem here is that they KNOW that no one will want it or pay for it. The only way to make it work is to take away the existing product from everyone first. That's why they want to legislate it. There should be NO legislation on this at all. If they have a better product, then sell it as that. If its not really better, then it will not be purchased and will fail. That is how services and goods are brought to the market in every other case. There should be no exception here.

Quite. The legislation, if any, should be directed the other way, to ensure that the content providers actively support the older technologies.

Originally posted by Maury Markowitz:> Do not offer these new movies for streaming on the old cable box.

Uhhh, that's basically what they're doing.Have new box with SOC: get first run moviesHave old box without SOC: don't get first run movies

Problem is they want to legislate it, so that everyone is on board weather you like it or not. If they can get SOC working for early release movies, then they can get it to work for pretty much anything else. No more time shifting your favorite shows, your fair use rights will be once again trampled, firs the DMCA now SOC?

All of this appears to be much ado about nothing. I can get all of this from iTunes already. If anything thinks that seeing the movie in question 1 week earlier is SO FRIGGING IMPORTANT that they would actually pay extra for it, then they're willing to get the new box anyway.

Really, this argument is completely bogus.

Maury

RTFA. We're not talking about movies, we're talking about other content that suddenly becomes a candidate for SOC: news items, or content that might never see light of day without SOC.

The only bogus argument here is that you need TV at all.

This is EXACTLY the problem. Everyone here that is saying, "I don't see the big deal with letting the movie industry use this as an outlet for pre-release movies" is COMPLETELY missing the point and obviously didn't read the article.

One of the main points of this article was the 'what if' factor. So SOC becomes legal under the law for use with pre-release movies. What next? So now our favorite TV shows and big Monday night football games and any other TV event that would generate large interest can be crippled with SOC? I'm not saying it will happen immediately, but opening the door for even one case legitimizes it for everyone else and it will be that much easier for content industries to justify its use in other scenarios.

I brought up this very point in the comments on the NCTA website that was linked to in the first article and predictably, there was no response to it.

> I agree with you on this, however, I think that the protection> of first-run movies gets to much attention in this issue.

Maybe, but by that token I think first-run movies get too much attention.

Who goes to see first-run movies? Teenagers. They don't go to see the movies, they go to be part of the crowd of other teenagers.

Movies-at-home appeal to a different demographic. A demographic that doesn't care about first-run. I would argue that there is very little market for first-run movies on TV. I think SOC is DOA, and it isn't even A yet.

Maury

It is dead as far as I'm concerned anyway.

I rarely go to the cinema, usually it is for a treat for the wife or kids. Many movies are also frequently available on cable PPV, and I never watch them there either, because I am too cheap. Why pay almost as much as a new DVD just to watch it a few weeks earlier, when I already skipped seeing in the cinema? We do spend more on DVDs than I would like, but at least we can do with them what we want, without asking permission or paying yet again to watch it.

The arguments to pay a lot more to see it sooner are just not very compelling to me.

But I grew up in a rural area, well before the big multi-screen cinemas became popular. We had to wait for months before the popular movies finally made it "to a screen near you". So maybe I am just used to waiting, and at finding other ways to entertain myself. Most books are better than the movie anyway. Even for a movie I really want to see, I cannot convince myself it is worth standing in line, just so I can see it a the first week-end of release. If it is good the first week, it should be just as good the second week, or perhaps the next year, or it is simply not worth seeing.

I can see why the Movie Studios want another chance to charge rent, but the SOC, like other DRM, is yet another thing that at best provides me with no value, and at worst can break what currently works without it. Adding any unneeded layer, is also adding an unneeded point of failure. And they want me to think they are doing me a favor? That it is a good deal? No thank you. Not now, not ever.

Ganso:

quote:

Problem is they want to legislate it, so that everyone is on board weather you like it or not. If they can get SOC working for early release movies, then they can get it to work for pretty much anything else. No more time shifting your favorite shows, your fair use rights will be once again trampled, firs the DMCA now SOC?

That is how I see this playing out too.

They want force everyone to add an additional point of possible failure, so they can use it as a back door into controlling what we can and can't do with the electronic equipment we own. So they can stop us from doing what we are legally doing now. I cannot believe them when they claim it will never affect anything but first release movies. They have lied to us too many times to believe them.

But they want us to think this is a good deal for us? Just so we can provide them with another opportunity to "rent" us a movie a few weeks earlier? Something which they could easily do any time they want to today, using current PPV technology, but are somehow afraid to do? Even if we believed their argument that it would never affect more than early-release movies, why would it be a good deal for us?

Again, no thank you. Very much, NO THANK YOU. If you try to force more of this on me, I will just go read a book or play a game, and have a better experience anyway.

Originally posted by Kressilac:Basically, the counterpoint boils down to understanding what they want to achieve now but not trusting the organization with the power that puts in their hands for the future.

This is exactly it. Let them implement SOC, but limit it to ONLY pre-release DVD movies. Problem solved.

But they won't go for that, because pre-release DVD's are only the temporary container they are using in order to pass a law that would allow them greater control over their content down the road.

Originally posted by saregos:To use a similar event from Cable's past, this is remarkably like the implementation of pay-per-view content in the first place. Those who had the capability to watch it did so, if they wanted to, and those who didn't have the hardware to do so didn't. That event didn't really impact TV as a whole, and I don't expect this one to either.

I'm inclined to disagree with you on the lack of impact of this for two reasons: 1) PPV was not government mandated the way the content industry is trying to get SOC to be; 2) PPV was strictly a "if you want it, buy it" setup. There was absolutely no negative impact that could be felt by those who chose to opt out. However, SOC does have a glaring, obvious detriment to those who opt out--their analog broadcast will be disabled.

While it may be that this could be a plausible evolution of the current PPV/VoD structure, this is the wrong way to go about it. Like many have said before, let electronics manufacturers put out new devices which support it and let the free market decide if evolution takes place. Since they're trying to play god and force a new species of their own design, something stinks of the whole situation.

Originally posted by Cherlindrea:While it may be that this could be a plausible evolution of the current PPV/VoD structure, this is the wrong way to go about it. Like many have said before, let electronics manufacturers put out new devices which support it and let the free market decide if evolution takes place. Since they're trying to play god and force a new species of their own design, something stinks of the whole situation.

The whole issue here is that they're currently legally prevented from implementing SOC. So they can't "put out new devices which support it and let the free market decide if evolution takes place". This isn't a debate over if we'll mandate SOC, it's a matter of if we'll allow it.

And SOC doesn't completely disable the analog outputs on a cable box, just prevents it from being used in this one case. Saying it'll cripple the box completely is factually inaccurate, but it seems to be the argument a lot of people are using.

Let me ask this: IF this actually were going to disable the analog outputs, do you really believe there would be a debate over it? No. The outcry would be much larger, and I doubt any sane person not in the employ of Cable would come to their defense. The reason there's actually a debate, with reasonable and rational people on both sides, is because it's not as bad as the rhetoric says.

That said, I'm starting to believe that I, and the others who fail to see what the big deal is here, am arguing in favor of something completely different from what you, the above article and pretty much everyone else here are arguing against. I suspect that somewhere along the lines there's been a fundamental disconnect between what the cable companies want and what people are hearing them say they want.

Originally posted by RoyFripple:One of the main points of this article was the 'what if' factor. So SOC becomes legal under the law for use with pre-release movies. What next? So now our favorite TV shows and big Monday night football games and any other TV event that would generate large interest can be crippled with SOC? I'm not saying it will happen immediately, but opening the door for even one case legitimizes it for everyone else and it will be that much easier for content industries to justify its use in other scenarios.

I brought up this very point in the comments on the NCTA website that was linked to in the first article and predictably, there was no response to it.

I'll respond to this here, then. The easy way to respond to the "what if they change this" argument you're raising here is: IF they do that, THEN we'll deal with it. I realize that yes, what the cable companies are asking for is more power. And I realize that yes, we're all loathe to give them that new power without a way of controlling it. But the answer to that doesn't have to be "well, then it's obvious we can't give them that power". The answer could just as easily be "well, we can give them that power, implement an oversight system, and reserve the power to take it back."

Isn't that the whole point of the FCC? That if a communications company abuses their power, they can be brought under control? Besides, again, this is EXACTLY like pay-per-view. It's the same concept: Premium content for those who are willing to pay for it. It's the same counter-argument: What about the people who don't have a PPV enabled cable box, or for whatever reason can't access the stream? What happens when cable companies decide to charge extra to watch *insert panic attack here*?

Originally posted by Cherlindrea:While it may be that this could be a plausible evolution of the current PPV/VoD structure, this is the wrong way to go about it. Like many have said before, let electronics manufacturers put out new devices which support it and let the free market decide if evolution takes place. Since they're trying to play god and force a new species of their own design, something stinks of the whole situation.

The whole issue here is that they're currently legally prevented from implementing SOC. So they can't "put out new devices which support it and let the free market decide if evolution takes place". This isn't a debate over if we'll mandate SOC, it's a matter of if we'll allow it.

And SOC doesn't completely disable the analog outputs on a cable box, just prevents it from being used in this one case. Saying it'll cripple the box completely is factually inaccurate, but it seems to be the argument a lot of people are using.

Let me ask this: IF this actually were going to disable the analog outputs, do you really believe there would be a debate over it? No. The outcry would be much larger, and I doubt any sane person not in the employ of Cable would come to their defense. The reason there's actually a debate, with reasonable and rational people on both sides, is because it's not as bad as the rhetoric says.

That said, I'm starting to believe that I, and the others who fail to see what the big deal is here, am arguing in favor of something completely different from what you, the above article and pretty much everyone else here are arguing against. I suspect that somewhere along the lines there's been a fundamental disconnect between what the cable companies want and what people are hearing them say they want.

This comment was edited by saregos on November 20, 2009 00:05

Reason for the debate is that it will not stay at just pre-release movies. It will expand just like copyright seems to magically expands every time something is about to exit it. Slippery slope has been proven again and again and pretending that pay per view, pay per time shift, pay per device is not the goal of the industry is just being very naive. They have themselves stated that it's their goal as everything else is "stealing" from their hard labour (or something along those lines).

We're saying that if there are guidelines built in restricting it to only those things they are saying they want to protect, then this is much ado about nothing. If those aren't there, then yes, we have room for the slippery slope and abuse from the content providers. Is there any actual documents outlining it all yet in legal speak or is everything still in preliminary stages?

First, I appreciate Ars giving me the opportunity to provide a guest post on the issue of Selectable Output Control. And, like someone lost in the desert, I suppose I should just be grateful for a cup of water and take Ars’ agreement that this issue really isn’t about “hobbling” consumers’ equipment – despite what SOC opponents have been arguing for months.

But Matthew Lasar’s response now shifts the debate from hobbling existing TVs to the inevitable slippery slope: If the FCC grants a waiver for early release movies, Ars argues that next will come use of SOC for the "Big Game" (which won’t likely involve my Washington Redskins, a key episode of "Mad Men" (perhaps where Don divorces Betty and moves in with Peggy because she has a TV that works with SOC), and, Lord knows, it will then be used to provide exclusive showings of a film of the JFK assassination that will prove that the Zapruder film was part of the "cover-up."

But the truth is that there is no studio-cable-DBS cabal to deny consumers viewing opportunities; rather, we’d like to give our customers content they would not otherwise receive without our ability to use SOC. Forgotten now is that the cable industry supported the adoption of the FCC ban on SOC as part of a compromise with the consumer electronics industry in which both industries recommended one-way Plug & Play rules to the FCC. We did so while recognizing – as did the consumer electronics industry and the FCC – that waivers would be granted upon a showing that the public interest would be served by waiving the rule, for example where the waiver proponent demonstrates that the content is a "new business model" advantageous to consumers. Therefore, the FCC must decide in each particular case whether SOC should be permitted. To me, it is crazy that the government is in this business of deciding outputs/inputs at all. But the FCC’s role ensures there isn’t a slippery slope; the proponent of a waiver must prove each time that the proposed service is something beneficial to consumers.

Putting aside the debate over the use (or abuse) of SOC, I have a particular concern with the claim that our television services are part of some “public network” akin to the public switched telephone network and therefore subject to some special regulation which restricts our business in ways not allowed with regard to other businesses. To be sure, our video services are subject to government regulation – at the federal, state and local levels – but we aren’t like telephone companies (which built their systems with captive ratepayers and a government-guaranteed rate of return) or even radio and television broadcasters (who were given public airwaves for free, but in return had to adhere to certain “public interest” requirements). Our industry had no government-guaranteed return or government-granted public airwaves – to the extent we used any public resources, we paid for our rights-of-way with local franchise fees. Indeed, the cable industry built analog networks, our new digital networks, our cable modem and digital phone services with private risk capital with no assured return.

If the goal is innovation to meet rapidly-changing consumer demands, the old-style public utility model is exactly the wrong way to go.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to engage in a discussion with Ars and its readers and look forward to more in the future.

Originally posted by KyleMcSlarrow:First, I appreciate Ars giving me the opportunity to provide a guest post on the issue of Selectable Output Control. And, like someone lost in the desert, I suppose I should just be grateful for a cup of water and take Ars’ agreement that this issue really isn’t about “hobbling” consumers’ equipment – despite what SOC opponents have been arguing for months.

Currently, SOC-enabled equipment can display everything broadcast over it, across all outputs.If SOC is activated, that is no longer the case.

So, to summarize, the slippery slope is not even in the ballpark, SOC is a way to make the studios more comfortable (and allow them to make more money by renting the movies earlier) and the FCC will be there to make sure the slippery slope doesn't occur. Oh, and the cable industry put their own nuts in the fire when they were building all this out w/less government support than the systems they are compared to.

Mr. McSlarrow, thank you for joining the conversation. However, it appears the argument for SOC reduces to "trust the FCC to keep broadcasters in check," and that doesn't sit well. The FCC is made up of fallible individuals, subject to tremendous pressures from other politicians, policymakers, industry groups and the like. Given its history, please forgive me if I don't believe that FCC will always consider the public ahead of these other competing interests.

"To me, it is crazy that the government is in this business of deciding outputs/inputs at all."

Of course, it should be a free market matter so that all cable/DBS providers can implement SOC without government input.

Or to collaborate in an "Industry Alliance" with equipment manufacturers to eliminate RF, composite and component jacks from future equipment all in one fell stroke without government stepping in to say "Wait a minute...".

Of course, this wouldn't be a major argument at all if HDMI/DVI were the only connections on new equipment. One day, that will happen. Your future TV will have HDMI/USB/Memory Card ports, maybe a DVI or a VGA input, but no component, composite or RF jacks. But this isn't going to come to fruition because equipment manufacturers are going to get strong-armed by Big Content to remove the jacks, but because consumers will migrate AT THEIR PACE to better equipment and the connections are deprecated naturally from the market. This has NOT happened yet.

The DTV Transition shows a danger that the public would have never guessed... If in two years we can convert the viewing public from NTSC to ATSC, why not force people to do it once every five years to keep in line with copy protection standards? And once the change-over is done, invalidate all the prior standard equipment by deadline and charge the consumer for the disposal of goods that will clog landfills and can't be reused. (I can see every TV and video electronic manufacturer look at Apple and think to themselves, "Why can't we do this for the same 'unified experience' bullshit?")

But of course, the entertainment industry would imagine a world where everyone pays for all art enjoyed and all consumers who copy content to pay hundred of thousands for doing it even once, or get sent for a nickel in the State Penitentiary. And the FCC is operating on their own delusion of defending the public interest while taking the opinions of corporations and lawyers over the public themselves like any quasi-republican arm of government. If a rich fuck pats an official on the back, hands over $12 million, and tells them that shutting Analog broadcast off will prevent their children from listening to hip-hop music and want to become property owners and CEOs right out of high school, the FCC feels like they did their job.

Get ready to throw away your bedroom and living room CRT TV's-- No, get ready to pay someone to dispose of your analog equipment in an environmentally sound manner that ordinary citizens cannot possibly undertake by themselves.